BOSTON — Imagine if Boston politicians once tried to outlaw electricity to save the candle industry. Picture City Hall packed with tradesmen warning that “light bulbs will ruin jobs.” Councilors nod solemnly, promise to “protect working families,” and keep the city dark. It sounds absurd — because it is.

Fast-forward to today, and Boston is doing exactly that. The so-called “smartest city in the world” is trying to stop self-driving cars.

This week, councilors Erin Murphy and Henry Santana stood in City Hall with union leaders, demanding the city “slow down” Waymo’s driverless vehicles. They called it a stand for “worker safety.” In reality, it looked more like a made-for-camera moment — politicians pretending to save jobs while protecting headlines.

It’s classic Boston politics: performative outrage dressed up as “protecting workers.” Instead of asking how the city can lead in autonomous tech, the council is asking how to stop it. They’ll hold hearings, issue press releases, and call it leadership — while the rest of the country quietly moves on.

This is the same city that brags about MIT and Harvard, yet somehow panics at the idea of a car that can drive itself. Politicians who can’t fix a crosswalk signal are suddenly AI experts, warning of “job loss” and “safety concerns.” You almost have to admire the confidence.

Let’s be real — this isn’t about safety. It’s about politics. Union applause matters more than innovation, and nothing earns easier applause than “saving jobs.” But if Boston really cared about its workers, it would be training them for the next generation, not trapping them in the last one.

Waymo represents the future — cleaner, safer, smarter transportation backed by real data, not political theater. But in Boston, where every innovation needs a committee meeting, the future is always treated like a threat.

It’s civic theater disguised as concern — like banning electricity to save the candle industry.

At this rate, when the rest of the world is riding safely in driverless cars, Boston will still be debating whether headlights violate union rules.